SAMBA vs NFS
iddwb
> If someone shortly explain the difference between SAMBA and NFS, and how
> we
> can get the SAMBA
I don't recall seeing a reply to this.. sorry if it duplicates what other
have said.
1) NFS and samba are both stateless server, require statefull clients.
2) NFS security is based on trusting another host -- SAMBA permission can
be based upon trusted hosts, but are more granular. Permission are based
upon user in samba. There is no general support for ACLS in samba -- it
relies on the OS to provide file permissions. Ergo, users must exist in
the unix user data base - as well as the samba/netbios/nt/lm data
base. Samba allows you to use an external NT/LM password
provider; meaning that if you have an NT domain controller, an OS/2
server, or some other server that stores NT or LM password hashes, that
can be used to authenticate users. However, you still need to have users
exist in the base os for file permission to work.
3) Im no security expert but from what I read, NFS relies on RPC
portmapper which is open to numerous security holes. Most unix machines
around here that have been compromise seem to have been hacked through
some RPC mechanism. Samba seems more secure. SMB is now well known and
seems fairly secure. LM hashes have come under fire becuase of the weak
hash algorythm. NT hashes are stronger. Samba can deal with both of them
depending upon the password server. Samba has has support for SSL though
I've never tried it.
4) Samba works generally well for all smb peers -- since smb is really a
peer protocol. Ergo, Lan manager, windows for workgroups, NT, OS/2 warp,
warp server, pathworks, and many others work will with a samba peer.
hope this helps.
>
David Bear
College of Public Programs/ASU